Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion : THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government. Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ). I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do. Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be *hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never saidmy site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating.The contenteven works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) On 7/15/05, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion :THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ).I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do.Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be *hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote: [From a PC mag article] In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. I would say that this statement is not the complete story. The available canvas still is of interest to web developers and coders -- whether the OS works with pixels or Bezier curves. Basically, the users' human factors, combined with the monitor's width, height and resolution, determine how many menu items (or icons) will fit next to eachother. A 23 widescreen display still would offer a lot more space to organize content, branding and navigation than a typical handheld device. Don't throw your dedicated handheld-optimized version out of the window yet. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? If you want scalabale vector graphics online, I'd still go with Flash. It'll take some time before a version of IE with the necessary XHTML/SVG/CSS support has a strong enough user base to warrant a switch from plugin to browser-only. Jeroen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
My whole point is... why bother? Why not? As I've written some posts back - most people have no extra expenses (or extra time / effort) delivering compliant sites, the only time consuming part is tweaking *for* IE, so I still can't see the point. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. I don't have it on laptop or smartphone (no MS platform). Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. That is sad. And yes, it happens. But, again, web document is not any kind of compiled / platform-dependent application, you don't have to refactor it for every target device, it is intended to be browser independent, if it's done properly. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
quote My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. / quote Actualy webstandards ARE quite cost efective ... :D. Truly you must see how one single, simple version separating content from presentation, and both from structure, TEHNOLOGY indifferent ( and independent ) can cut your cost down ! It takes longer to develop ? Longer than two or five versions optimized for one platform or combination at a time ? That, my dear, IS one of the first problems solved by the Standards :) Man ... how did i manage to update many versions of the same site every day over and over and over again ? Good question ... now we have the answers we seeked! I'm not trying to sway you to the dark side here ( :D ) just trying to point some less obvious aspects of the whole web standards thing. The tehnologyes behind the web standards ( wich in fact are simple choices - you can use any one of them and still have a web standard website or web app) were here long before people ever heard about the standards. The standards are more about tehnique, atitude, awareness and less about tehnology, or not at all, becouse web standards will still BE on the web, about the web, THE WEB long after php, asp, xml co will will be forgoten. Oh, and yes, we bother becouse we care ;) quote It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it / quote So it's Opera, Firefox ... damn i think there are a lot of them ! :) Real question is why do YOU choose (or limit my choices) for me ? How do you know what my options are? quote ...practically everyone who is using it has access to IE... / quote ? your kidding , right ? What if i were blind ... or can't use my hands ... or ... How would i have ACCESS to IE ? Or Firefox ? And why do you think we Human Beeings chose based solely on availability or close proximity (force down the throat it's more likely for IE) to something? Well if you're 1 foot 80 go buy a BMW cose' you live across the dealer ... quote I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. / quote True only if you develop one verion for each, and only from a certain point of view. But you are not doing this anymore, or so you said, so ... you are kowtowing to the vocal minorityes even if you don't know it. And as a fortune consequence the vocal minorityes are ... gone ( for a while ;) ). Here comes the biger picture :) I appologies for my english and for posting offtopic. I will fade now ... (buying a BMW or something)On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never saidmy site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating.The contenteven works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) On 7/15/05, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion :THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ).I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site)
RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
XAML is a document definition language which doesnt rely on a browser. It is a whole new technology which allows us to develop applications which are fed from a server. There is no browser. IE doesn't even come into it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeroen Visser|vizi Sent: Fri 15/07/2005 08:11 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote: [From a PC mag article] In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. I would say that this statement is not the complete story. The available canvas still is of interest to web developers and coders -- whether the OS works with pixels or Bezier curves. Basically, the users' human factors, combined with the monitor's width, height and resolution, determine how many menu items (or icons) will fit next to eachother. A 23 widescreen display still would offer a lot more space to organize content, branding and navigation than a typical handheld device. Don't throw your dedicated handheld-optimized version out of the window yet. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? If you want scalabale vector graphics online, I'd still go with Flash. It'll take some time before a version of IE with the necessary XHTML/SVG/CSS support has a strong enough user base to warrant a switch from plugin to browser-only. Jeroen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
David Pietersen wrote: Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never said my site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating. The content even works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) IMHO, it seems to me that everything you are saying here are basically all the same reasons to adopt web standards as part of the systems development lifecycle. It does take more effort to learn to apply web standards, but the whole point is that there is less pain for both the user and developer in the process. If you can't see that then why bother, and I'd have to agree with you, just go back to being happy with tag soup. But there is also something else at play here, in that if it is a government department, there is probably some form of CMS involved and all the government procedures for managing digital documents, and that may or may not allow easy upgrades in the design, and some systems/CMSs are a nightmare to try to deploy standards compliant web sights. In regards to large organisations, you are right, if the site is quite workable and accessible, it may create more problems than it's worth to try and implement a fix. But at the same time I think the experience of people on this list is that they achieve everything you aim for in accessibility and multiple deployment, and maybe more so, by using web standards, at least in the environments they work in. Not only that, when you want to redesign your site, in any way, let alone upgrade it to address future technologies or devices, there is a lot of evidence to show that there is a big difference between those who do so with a base of standards compliant documents and those whose ones are marked up in tag soup. This is something that quite often cannot be solved just by developing in web standards. In large organisations the real problem is systems that are able to transform documents whilst maintaining the document structure, semantics and metadata. There are hardly any systems out there that can do that. But those who are looking to solve these problems, and have a keen eye to making sure the architecture and systems they are using will be able to accommodate such changes, along with being able to quickly adopt new technologies like SVG, AJAX, etc, will be in a far better position than those systems that are not trying to address these problems. Also, IMHO, I feel that the overall quality of solutions offered as a web standards approach as opposed to tag soup will always offer superior advantages when do well. Regards Geoff Deering ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On 7/15/05, wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think XAML needs to be hosted inside IE? No it doesn't need to be. I said You will be able to, not you must :) People need to take a step back here and stop the off topic rants. Go do some light reading or something: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnintlong/html/longhornch01.asp XAML = eXtensible _Application_ Markup Language ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: SPAM: RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Peter Firminger wrote: I often limit CMS Administration consoles to IE as I may well use an inline HTML editor (an Ektron one for example) that invokes a dll on the client. i thought ms was moving away from the dll. dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Prototype Framework
See http://openrico.org/home.page for applications based on it. Bret Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.com To Sent by: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc rdsgroup.org Subject RE: [WSG] Prototype Framework 07/14/2005 05:21 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] roup.org Has anyone checked out the JavaScript Prototype framework? http://prototype.conio.net/ Are there any good resources around that explain how it works? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) great analogy!! d -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:54:22 -0400, Dennis Lapcewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE I have this conversation about once a week with a Windoze-centric-IE-only coworker. My response is always this: Just because a lot of people have something, doesn't mean it's the best of it's kind. Nearly 100% of those users just don't know better. They don't know that they can use something else, don't know how to switch to something else, or just plain don't care. sigh... -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Dennis, Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? Bob McClelland Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Isn't it funny that we were having these kinds of discussions about Netscape in '96? Why design for anything other than Netscape? We are finally getting standards that aren't tied to a particular browser implementation/build and we have to ask ourselves whether we want to use them? Give me a break...Coding for a particular browser is to doom the longevity of your design. The web is constantly in flux. Only third-party enforced specs will provide a reasonable foundation (enter W3C). -Nate ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
designer wrote: Dennis, Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? Bob McClelland as required by industry standards is the key fragment, bob. ie isn't playing by industry standards that are being and have been developed; they are trying to lead the industry toward a standard they have set that really doesn't work that well. dwain Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
At least on the open road, the square wheelers would actually _see_ the error of their ways. You have to wonder what would happen if someone _physically showed_ that 95% the alternatives... On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:15:13 -0400, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] clearfixing
I found this CSS on a site www.kiss100.com quite interested to know how it
behaves in browsers, though it is heavy javascript
I often use a .reset class which i gather is to serve the same purpose via a
different approach.
.clearfix:after {
content: .;
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
}
.clearfix {
display: inline-block;
}
/* Holly Hack Targets IE Win only \*/
* html .clearfix {height: 1%;}
.clearfix {display: block;}
/* End Holly Hack */
the reset class that i have been using
intention is to put a minimal size block below a container and have other
containers flow below that without a great deal of space
or bumping
.reset {
display: block;
clear: both;
font-size: 1px;
height: 1px;
line-height: 1px;
margin: 0;
}
I notice that I am having a few troubles with ie5.5 which I think are fixable
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] clearfixing
sam sherlock wrote: intention is to put a minimal size block below a container and have other containers flow below that without a great deal of space or bumping have you read this? http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html hth, dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
